Cashman v. Meriden Hospital

• Decision Date: 07 December 1933
• Citation: 117 Conn. 585,169 A. 915
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: CASHMAN v. MERIDEN HOSPITAL

169 A. 915

117 Conn. 585

CASHMAN v. MERIDEN HOSPITAL

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

December 7, 1933

Appeal from Superior Court. New Haven County; John Rufus Booth Judge.

Action by Joseph W. Cashman against the Meriden Hospital to recover damages for personal injuries to plaintiff while a patient at defendant's hospital. From a judgment, entered for defendant on plaintiff's refusal to plead over after his demurrer to a special defense was overruled by the Superior Court, to which the action was transferred from the city court of Meriden, plaintiff appeals.

No error.

Denis T. O'Brien, Jr., and Robert M. Dowling, both of Meriden for appellant.

Cyril Coleman and Lawrence A. Howard, both of Hartford, for appellee.

Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HAINES, HINMAN, BANKS, and AVERY JJ.

AVERY, Judge.

The plaintiff brought this action against the Meriden Hospital and Lillian Nodwell, a nurse employed therein, claiming that he became a patient for an operation; that after the operation it became necessary to apply external heat, and while he was in bed external heat was applied by the nurse and other attendants under her direction; and that the water in the bottles was too hot, whereby he was severely burned. The complaint is in four counts: The first alleges breach of contract; the second alleges negligence on the part of the servants and agents of the hospital; the third alleges negligence on the part of the hospital in the selection and hiring of its servants and agents; and the fourth alleges negligence on the part of the nurse, Miss Nodwell. The action, so far as directed against her, however, has been withdrawn, and only the first three counts remain in the case.

In its answer, the defendant pleaded, as a special defense, that at the time of the occurrence it was, by its charter, a charitable corporation without capital stock and whose members derived, and could derive, no profit from its operation. and continued to be such an institution. To this defense, the plaintiff demurred on various grounds, and the demurrer was overruled by the trial court on the ground that the facts alleged in the special defense constituted a good defense to the claim of negligence set up in the second count of the complaint.

In demurring to the defendant's special defense, the plaintiff admitted any facts provable under it as alleged which for the purpose of this appeal are assumed to be true. Judd v. Mutual Bank & Trust Co., 114 Conn. 553, 559 159 A. 487. The demurrer, being addressed to the substance of the answer, if any facts which are provable under its allegation would support the defense relied upon, the demurrer must of necessity fail. Blakeslee v. Water Commissioners, 106 Conn. 642, 649, 139 A. 106, 55 A.L.R. 1319; O'Donnell v. Sargent & Co., 69 Conn. 476, 483, 38 A. 216; Wildman v. Wildman, 72 Conn. 262, 270, 44 A. 224; Mathews v. Converse, 83 Conn. 511, 515, 77 A. 961. The special defense employed language broad enough to permit proof of all the facts necessary to show that the Meriden Hospital is a charitable institution. In Hearns v. Waterbury Hospital, 66 Conn. 98, 126, 33 A. 595, 31 L.R.A. 224, we held that a charitable corporation like the defendant-whatever may be the principle that controls its liability for corporate neglect in the performance of a corporate duty-is not liable, on grounds of public policy, for injuries sustained by a patient as the result of negligent conduct of physicians and nurses employed by it, in the selection of whom it exercised due care.

The plaintiff asks us upon this appeal to reconsider the position taken in the Hearns Case. The courts are practically agreed that a charitable institution is not responsible to those who avail themselves of its benefits for any injuries that may be sustained through the negligence or torts of its managers agents, and servants. Ettlinger v. Trustees of Randolph-Macon College (C. C. A.) 31 F.(2d) 869, 871; and see notes in Williams' Adm'x v. Church Home, 223 Ky. 355, 3 S.W.2d 753, 62 A.L.R. 721, 723, 726; Roberts v. Ohio Valley General Hospital, 98 W.Va. 476, 127 S.E. 318, 42 A.L.R. 968, 970, 971; St. Vincent's Hospital v. Stine, 193 Ind. 350, 144 N.E. 537, 33 A.L.R. 1361, 1365, 1369; Bachman v. Y. W. C. A., 179 Wis. 178, 191 N.W. 751, 30 A.L.R. 448, 451, 455; Weston's Adm'x v. Hospital of St. Vincent of Paul, 131 Va. 587, 107 S.E. 785, 23 A.L.R. 907, 910, 923; Taylor v. Flower Deaconess Home and Hospital, 104 Ohio St. 61, 135 N.E. 287, 23 A.L.R. 900, 903; Roosen v. Peter Bent Brigham Hospital, 235 Mass. 66, 126 N.E....